Goldes has never stopped claiming to be “developing a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine – SPICE(tm) powered by hydrinos.”

Here is what the physicist Andreas Rathke has to say about Mills’ theory of “Classical Quantum Mechanics,” on which both Mills’ “hydrinos” and Goldes’ “fractional hydrogen” are supposedly based:

“In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.”

Here some extended excepts from Rathke’s paper:

A critical analysis of the hydrino model

Andreas Rathke 2005 New J. Phys. 7 127

“Hydrinos are alleged lower-energetic electronic states of the hydrogen atom. These states are predicted within a new deterministic theory of quantum mechanics called the `grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics’ (CQM) [23]. In this theory, the sheath electrons of an atom are orbiting the core at a fixed distance on a so-called orbit sphere. For the well-known electronic states of the hydrogen atom, the radius of the orbit sphere equals the radius of the corresponding state in Bohr’s model. For the new hydrino states, the radius is r = qaH, where aH is the Bohr radius and q is a pure fraction. The corresponding binding energies are given by Wq = W1/q2 where W1 = 13.6 eV is the energy of the standard hydrogen ground state. The standard ground state of the hydrogen atom is assumed to be metastable and the new hydrino states are only attainable by `non-radiative’ transitions [23, 25]. These states are assumed to be reachable in the collision of hydrogen atoms with a catalyst, which can make an electronic transition of the same energy. In the collision the energy is transferred from the hydrogen to the catalyst, which absorbs it by an electronic transition to a more energetic state. Eventually, the catalyst will release the acquired energy by the emission of a photon and return to its ground state. The lowest-energy hydrino state, the real ground state of the hydrogen atom, is then determined by the requirement that the orbital velocity of the sheath electron must not exceed the speed of light. The use of the alleged hydrino states for power systems relies on inducing the decay of hydrogen to a hydrino state and using the energy released in this process.”

“Our analysis of the theory of [24, 25] has demonstrated that the theory is mathematically inconsistent in several points: the quantization condition of CQM allows only a solution for the ground state of the hydrogen atom; the radial solutions for the charge-density function of the electron, as well as the angular solutions with nonzero angular momentum, differ from those given in the literature on CQM [24, 25]. To uncover the latter problem, we did not resort to any physics argument but instead directly checked the alleged solution of the underlying equations of motion. Hence there is no way to cure the flaws of the theory by adding physical assumptions. CQM is obviously inconsistent, and in particular does not contain solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos. Hence, we can omit a further discussion of CQM and, in particular, will not discuss the description of `non-radiative’ electronic transitions.”

“…whereas the stability of the ground state of the hydrogen atom is not yet proven for all environmental conditions, the hydrinos have alleged properties that make it impossible that their existence can be encompassed by standard quantum mechanics.”

“In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al , it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.”